Moralez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 34

ORDER GRANTING 29 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND by Judge William Alsup. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
FRANCISCA MORALEZ,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C 17-05127 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

15

WAL-MART STORES INC., dba
WALMART SUPERCENTER, and
WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS
TRUST, a Delaware Business Trust,

16

Defendants.

14

/

17
18
19
20
21
22

INTRODUCTION
In this ADA action, plaintiff seeks leave to file a first amended complaint. Defendants
oppose. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED.
STATEMENT
Plaintiff Francisca Moralez initiated this action in September 2017 against defendants

23

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust. She alleged, among other

24

claims, four violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act at a Wal-Mart store in

25

Antioch. In January 2018, the parties conducted a joint inspection of the store pursuant to

26

General Order 56. In February, plaintiff provided Wal-Mart with a list of 71 alleged ADA

27

violations discovered during the joint inspection. On March 29, the deadline set by the case

28

management order, plaintiff filed the instant motion.

1

This order follows full briefing. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), this order finds plaintiff’s

2

motion suitable for submission without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing

3

scheduled for May 17.

4

ANALYSIS

5

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a first amended complaint adding allegations regarding

6

access barriers identified during the parties’ joint inspection. FRCP 15(a)(2) permits a party to

7

amend its pleading with the court’s leave, stating that “[t]he court should freely give leave

8

when justice so requires.” In the FRCP 15 context, our court of appeals has instructed that

9

“[f]ive factors are frequently used to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: (1)
bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment[,] and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

(5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” Allen v. City of Beverly Hills,

12

911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990). These factors weigh in favor of granting leave.

13

First, Wal-Mart argues that the proposed amendment is a delay tactic through which

14

plaintiff seeks to prolong the lawsuit and increase attorney’s fees. Wal-Mart also complains

15

that plaintiff’s motion comes six months after her original complaint and almost three months

16

after the joint site inspection. Although plaintiff fails to explain her delay in waiting months

17

after the site inspection to seek amendment, this order declines to find either bad faith or undue

18

delay. The original complaint alleged that plaintiff would seek to amend once she identified

19

other barriers (Compl. ¶ 11). Plaintiff also seeks leave to amend within the deadline set forth

20

in the case management order.1
Second, the party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice. DCD

21
22

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). Wal-Mart’s opposition fails to

23

do so. Again, the initial complaint provided Wal-Mart notice that plaintiff would amend the

24

complaint to allege the existence of additional barriers upon their discovery. This order

25

disagrees that plaintiff should file her new allegations in a separate lawsuit rather than seek to

26

amend the complaint. As our court of appeals has recognized, “[i]t makes no sense to require a

27
28

1

Wal-Mart’s request that this order find that “no fees and costs generated to date by Plaintiff can be
considered reasonable in this case” is DENIED.

2

1

disabled plaintiff to challenge, in separate cases, multiple barriers in the same facility,

2

controlled by the same entity, all related to the plaintiff’s specific disability.” Doran v.

3

7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008).

4

Third, Wal-Mart characterizes plaintiff’s proposed amendments as “baseless” and

5

“lack[ing] merit,” but fails to identify which new allegations it contends are futile or explain

6

why such amendments are insufficient under the ADA. This is also plaintiff’s first

7

amendment. These factors accordingly weigh in favor of granting the motion.

8
9

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint is
GRANTED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff shall file the first amended complaint attached to her motion as a separate

docket entry by MAY 7.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: May 1, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3